Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Thisisastackup/A giant crab comes forth
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
User:Thisisastackup/A giant crab comes forth[edit]
If the band and the members do not warrant articles, we don't do one on an album. Stale draft. Legacypac (talk) 05:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Drafts are not deleted for lacking notability. The page is clearly tagged as a draft and as such unlikely to be misleading. If people feel strongly about WP:FAKEARTICLE concerns, blanking and replacing with Template:Userpage blanked would also be fine. It would have been better to not take up admin and MfD time with an MfD nom. A2soup (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - This is a draft. Lack of notability is reason to delete an article, but not to delete a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- If you keep voting to keep draft articles on non-notable topics, I'll moved them into article space and AfD them. When they are deleted by the larger community the draft turned in a redirect will be deleted too. Legacypac (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well, then I'll ask at the AfD that the article be re-draftified if the consensus is "Delete". It seems like a futile, POINTy exercise - no one is arguing the page is ready for mainspace, that's why it's a draft. If I thought it was ready for mainspace, I'd move it myself. A2soup (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- First, I've not moved anything to article space and then AfD'd it - but I could and might if this story about drafts not needing to meet GNG is true. Articles don't need to be perfect to go to mainspace. Second, I found that this band DOES have a page under an earlier band name and I've moved it to mainspace now. Now that is being criticized. Don't vote to keep something that you don't see as suitable for Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- First of all, I appreciate you finding that the band has an article under an alternate name - that was good detective work. Would you now support keeping A Giant Crab Comes Forth at AfD? Secondly, I think the story about drafts not needing to meet GNG is true. Although it seems there is some disagreement on this point, and it is an important one for us here, so perhaps an RfC is in order? What about something very simple like: "Can userspace drafts be deleted for failing GNG?" or "What is the appropriate way to deal with a userspace draft that fails GNG?" A2soup (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'd need to see the nomination rational at AfD. My rational above is clear, but proved incorrect since the band used many unrelated names.
- Where is the policy to say drafts are GNG exempt? Submitted drafts get kicked all the time for not clearly passing GNG with enough references to prove it, so what to do with a draft that appears to fail GNG but does not qualify under a speedy tag? Legacypac (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- WP:N as a whole is about "articles", which I take to be separate from drafts. But you're right that I don't know of any policy that makes this distinction explicit one way or another, which is why I suggested an RfC. I would also note that at AfC, drafts are declined (i.e. kept in draftspace or userspace) when they fail GNG, not deleted. Additionally, most of the userspace drafts we are discussing were never submitted for AfC - the user did not intend them to be reviewed and judged, and they are essentially a scratchpad. As for what to do, I would recommend just leaving stale, harmless, AfD-failing userspace drafts alone or blanking+templating if they are problematic (e.g. for WP:FAKEARTICLE concerns) but not speediable. If they are essentially copies of mainspace articles, redirection is probably best. I gave my basic rationale for this here; I don't want to wall-of-text this discussion by posting it again with slight modifications for this situation. A2soup (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thank-you for acknowledging there is no policy behind this idea that N does not apply to drafts. In my view a user space or draft space article is just an article in another area temporarily. Drafts DO get deleted regularly at MfD, and G13 when the subject fails GNG. NOTAWEBHOST is essentially acknowledgement of failing GNG too. Legacypac (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- I was saying that there isn't any policy on the issue either way, so the question is unclear and maybe an RfC would help. What do you think of that? NOTAWEBHOST and G13 have essentially nothing to do with GNG as far as I can tell. A2soup (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thank-you for acknowledging there is no policy behind this idea that N does not apply to drafts. In my view a user space or draft space article is just an article in another area temporarily. Drafts DO get deleted regularly at MfD, and G13 when the subject fails GNG. NOTAWEBHOST is essentially acknowledgement of failing GNG too. Legacypac (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- WP:N as a whole is about "articles", which I take to be separate from drafts. But you're right that I don't know of any policy that makes this distinction explicit one way or another, which is why I suggested an RfC. I would also note that at AfC, drafts are declined (i.e. kept in draftspace or userspace) when they fail GNG, not deleted. Additionally, most of the userspace drafts we are discussing were never submitted for AfC - the user did not intend them to be reviewed and judged, and they are essentially a scratchpad. As for what to do, I would recommend just leaving stale, harmless, AfD-failing userspace drafts alone or blanking+templating if they are problematic (e.g. for WP:FAKEARTICLE concerns) but not speediable. If they are essentially copies of mainspace articles, redirection is probably best. I gave my basic rationale for this here; I don't want to wall-of-text this discussion by posting it again with slight modifications for this situation. A2soup (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- First of all, I appreciate you finding that the band has an article under an alternate name - that was good detective work. Would you now support keeping A Giant Crab Comes Forth at AfD? Secondly, I think the story about drafts not needing to meet GNG is true. Although it seems there is some disagreement on this point, and it is an important one for us here, so perhaps an RfC is in order? What about something very simple like: "Can userspace drafts be deleted for failing GNG?" or "What is the appropriate way to deal with a userspace draft that fails GNG?" A2soup (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- First, I've not moved anything to article space and then AfD'd it - but I could and might if this story about drafts not needing to meet GNG is true. Articles don't need to be perfect to go to mainspace. Second, I found that this band DOES have a page under an earlier band name and I've moved it to mainspace now. Now that is being criticized. Don't vote to keep something that you don't see as suitable for Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well, then I'll ask at the AfD that the article be re-draftified if the consensus is "Delete". It seems like a futile, POINTy exercise - no one is arguing the page is ready for mainspace, that's why it's a draft. If I thought it was ready for mainspace, I'd move it myself. A2soup (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
An article is an article regardless of where it is located. NOTAWEBHOST is totally about GNG - your resume, hockey pool, vacation plans, etc all fail GNG so obviously they should be speedy deleted. Same with patent nonsense and attack pages - they are just reasons to fast track deletion of non-GNG content. Legacypac (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Your view of GNG is much too broad. Attack pages are deleted because of BLP/legal issues. Attack pages about subjects that pass GNG with flying colors should still be deleted. GNG doesn't make sense in the case of patent nonsense because there is no subject to apply the guideline to. If you read it, WP:NOTWEBHOST is not about GNG, it is about misuse of Wikipedia as something other than an encyclopedia-building space - notability doesn't enter into it. If Barack Obama made himself a dating profile on Wikipedia, it could be deleted per NOTWEBHOST. Re "an article is an article regardless of where it is located", WP:ARTICLE (aka WP:MAINSPACE) says:
"Articles" belong to the main namespace of Wikipedia pages (also called "article namespace" or simply "mainspace").A2soup (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The page has been moved to mainspace. I'm bringing this up at ANI as it's not clear to me whether this shouldn't just be closed as moot or returned. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'd call itba withdraw with no delete votes. Legacypac (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.